I'm sure this is the type of parity Adam Silver would have loved to envision for our NBA

[flyerhawk]

I agree.

I think the game as a whole has regressed to its form before MJ. The Bulls did run the league for a bit but they had a ton of clutch plays and there were a couple of other teams in the West that couldn't consistently get to the next level. Only 1 year of the Bulls run was on a stacked superteam imo.

Lack of parity works for casual fans. But if the Warriors blow out the Cavs then this might go down as the worst playoffs in any sport that I can remember.

I'm curious what you mean by the game has regressed?

I think most of us thought that a 73 win team acquiring Kevin Durant was going to make things a bit lopsided.

 

[Clayton]

I'm curious what you mean by the game has regressed?

Regressed as a form of entertainment.

I figure the idea of massive inequality isnt a hard sell to you

 

[flyerhawk]

Regressed as a form of entertainment.

I figure the idea of massive inequality isnt a hard sell to you

LOL.

I guess that depends on whether you find the Spurs to be an exciting team to watch.

 

[shopson67]

Regressed as a form of entertainment.

I figure the idea of massive inequality isnt a hard sell to you

This is the whole point. Who wants to watch two massive favorites essentially sweep their way to the finals? The finals should be a great series, but that month of playoffs prior is largely a waste of time, and the regular season is devalued as well. It's not that the level of play has diminished, it's the level of competition.

I usually watch a lot of NBA games, but I've regressed to just watching my horrible Lakers in the regular season (with the occasional game here and there when nothing else is on). I didn't watch any of the Cavs or Warriors playoff games leading up to the finals.

 

[flyerhawk]

This is the whole point. Who wants to watch two massive favorites essentially sweep their way to the finals? The finals should be a great series, but that month of playoffs prior is largely a waste of time, and the regular season is devalued as well. It's not that the level of play has diminished, it's the level of competition.

I usually watch a lot of NBA games, but I've regressed to just watching my horrible Lakers in the regular season (with the occasional game here and there when nothing else is on). I didn't watch any of the Cavs or Warriors playoff games leading up to the finals.

But this is the norm for basketball.

 

[shopson67]

But this is the norm for basketball.

Name one other time that the two finalists have combined for one loss this late in the playoffs. Or that the same 2 teams met in the finals 3 years in a row (and counting).

 

[HurricaneDij39]

But this is the norm for basketball.

The Warriors thus far have opened these 2017 playoffs 13-0. This has literally never happened before.

 

[gohusk]

I agree.

I think the game as a whole has regressed to its form before MJ. The Bulls did run the league for a bit but they had a ton of clutch plays and there were a couple of other teams in the West that couldn't consistently get to the next level. Only 1 year of the Bulls run was on a stacked superteam imo.

Lack of parity works for casual fans. But if the Warriors blow out the Cavs then this might go down as the worst playoffs in any sport that I can remember.

Who's fault is that? I said this before, but any team could have had Curry if they really wanted him because they already had Monta Ellis and you couldn't have the two in the backcourt at the same time because there was nobody who could d up Kobe (or any other 6'5"+ SG in the league). I liked the player but I was thinking great, win 45-50 games and get swept by the Lakers every year. Klay Thompson was all over the map on the draft board, had questions about his athleticism, but could shoot. I was happy about the pick but there was nothing sexy about it. Everybody had a shot at Green and said nay.

Yes, Durant was obviously a huge pick-up, but I just don't have much sympathy for the other teams because if any other team really wanted any of the big 3 that won 73 games last year they could have had them. They could have had anybody on the entire roster. At what point does the franchise get some credit for thinking a little different than others do or the coaching staff get credit for putting together defensive schemes that give other teams fits because eve though they're undersized?

 

[shopson67]

Who's fault is that? I said this before, but any team could have had Curry if they really wanted him because they already had Monta Ellis and you couldn't have the two in the backcourt at the same time because there was nobody who could d up Kobe (or any other 6'5"+ SG in the league). I liked the player but I was thinking great, win 45-50 games and get swept by the Lakers every year. Klay Thompson was all over the map on the draft board, had questions about his athleticism, but could shoot. I was happy about the pick but there was nothing sexy about it. Everybody had a shot at Green and said nay.

Yes, Durant was obviously a huge pick-up, but I just don't have much sympathy for the other teams because if any other team really wanted any of the big 3 that won 73 games last year they could have had them. They could have had anybody on the entire roster. At what point does the franchise get some credit for thinking a little different than others do or the coaching staff get credit for putting together defensive schemes that give other teams fits because eve though they're undersized?

Take it easy, I don't think anyone is blaming the Warriors. Teams should always pursue the best way to improve their rosters. The problem is more about the circumstances that led to the league's current imbalance. The NBA needs to continue to be creative and find ways to develop more competitive balance.

 

[flyerhawk]

Name one other time that the two finalists have combined for one loss this late in the playoffs. Or that the same 2 teams met in the finals 3 years in a row (and counting).

The Lakers and Celtics were in the finals a combined 13 times in the 1980s. 13 out of 20 finals appearances were the same two teams.

The playoffs were unique but there both the Cavs and Warriors also dealt with notably weakened teams through their run the finals.

 

[tlance]

If you think there was only one-championship level team in the 90's, then frankly you don't know basketball. It couldn't be any more simple than that.

This is rich. You telling me that I don't know basketball. LOL.

A championship level team is one good enough to win a title in their era. You can't say that the '96 Sonics could have won in another year. It doesn't work like that. There was nobody good enough to seriously challenge the Bulls, so i don't know how you can say these teams were all championship caliber. The only teams to win between 91 and 98 were the Rockets and Bulls. If Jordan were not in the picture, sure, somebody else would have won. But he was and they didn't.

 

[purguy12]

Adam killing the NBA. Sucks to see oh well. Things will change soon.

Has the NBA playoffs started yet. LOL

 

[LALakersboy24.7]

^^^This^^^

Basketball is the one sport where literally 1 guy can make all of the difference and the best player in the league can drag otherwise terrible rosters to the playoffs. Heck, one role player, playing out of his mind can completely change a playoff series.

Sawggy P is the GOAT.

 

[OregonDucks]

I feel like everyone has forgotten how much of a shit organization the Warriors were for DECADES before our run right now. It seems like everyone assumes we've been some dynasty for a long time. GTFO.

I sat through so many damn 20 win seasons it's ridiculous. Draft pick after draft pick being a bust. Then the Warriors got sold to a legit owner, who hired the right people, who drafted the right people and look what happened.

I mean, just look at the damn teams that the Warriors had before Steph. They had one season of We Believe where the Warriors made the playoffs. Then they traded away Jason Richardson for Brandan Wright. Then they blew up the team.

I remember when the Warriors made their first blip on the basketball radar when Don Nelson 8th seeded Warriors knocked off the Mavs. It was like the first time in decades the Warriors were even remotely relevant and what an underdog story for the 8th seeded WArriors to knock off #1. And that was like 2006? So not even that long ago.

 

[shopson67]

The Lakers and Celtics were in the finals a combined 13 times in the 1980s. 13 out of 20 finals appearances were the same two teams.

Well known, but not the same thing. Does anyone expect two different teams next year either?

 

[msgkings322]

Well known, but not the same thing. Does anyone expect two different teams next year either?

The Ws need to make sure they keep their core 4 together with a functional bench. If so, yeah it's probably another finals matchup for those two. But maybe the Celtics or Wizards make a move and get good enough to knock off the Cavs?

And if the Spurs add CP3 or someone else good, and stay healthy, and maybe the Ws have an injury bug...

There's a lot that can happen

 

[jontaejones]

If Kevin Durant goes to the Raptors, then there will be parity again.

 

[HurricaneDij39]

This is rich. You telling me that I don't know basketball. LOL.

A championship level team is one good enough to win a title in their era. You can't say that the '96 Sonics could have won in another year. It doesn't work like that. There was nobody good enough to seriously challenge the Bulls, so i don't know how you can say these teams were all championship caliber. The only teams to win between 91 and 98 were the Rockets and Bulls. If Jordan were not in the picture, sure, somebody else would have won. But he was and they didn't.

Sounds like the words of one who only started to follow basketball when Kobe and LeBron were in their primes. I suppose you could say the '96 lacked discipline (Payton and Kemp weren't exactly the most level-headed guys), and given the fact that two years prior they finished with the league's best record and couldn't close the #8 seeded Nuggets after taking a 2-0 lead.

But, if you think those other four finals teams weren't championship-capable teams then you clearly didn't watch basketball in the 90's.

And yes, you do in fact need to humble yourself in some of your posts Mr. Know-it-all.

 

[tlance]

Sounds like the words of one who only started to follow basketball when Kobe and LeBron were in their primes. I suppose you could say the '96 lacked discipline (Payton and Kemp weren't exactly the most level-headed guys), and given the fact that two years prior they finished with the league's best record and couldn't close the #8 seeded Nuggets after taking a 2-0 lead.

But, if you think those other four finals teams weren't championship-capable teams then you clearly didn't watch basketball in the 90's.

And yes, you do in fact need to humble yourself in some of your posts Mr. Know-it-all.

You are talking semantics.

I watched every one of those games. I question whether you actually watched basketball in the 90s. From other posts you have made, I am guessing you are in your late 20s, which would have made you about 7 in 1996.

Golden State is championship caliber. Who else is? The Spurs and Cavs are both good enough to compete in most eras, but neither looks to have a chance against these Warriors. If they have no shot, then I am not sure you can say they are a championship caliber team.

That was the dynamic for most of the 90s. That was my point. The games may have appeared more competitive than what we are seeing now, but the reality is that barring major injury, we all knew who was winning the title before the season even started and the gap between the Bulls and everyone else was fairly wide.

 

[tlance]

Sounds like the words of one who only started to follow basketball when Kobe and LeBron were in their primes. I suppose you could say the '96 lacked discipline (Payton and Kemp weren't exactly the most level-headed guys), and given the fact that two years prior they finished with the league's best record and couldn't close the #8 seeded Nuggets after taking a 2-0 lead.

But, if you think those other four finals teams weren't championship-capable teams then you clearly didn't watch basketball in the 90's.

And yes, you do in fact need to humble yourself in some of your posts Mr. Know-it-all.

By the way, go back and look at this thread.

This was a respectful conversation. I made a comment that you didn't agree with. Instead of coming back with facts, you instead chose to get personal. That is why so many on these boards have a problem with you.

Bottom line, I am 10 years older than you and have proven my knowledge of the game time and again. You approach the NBA like a journalist. You have a lot of surface knowledge because you study it, but I can tell you have never played at a competitive level. It shows in some of your posts and theories.

I don't have a problem with you, but you best take a hard look in the mirror. If you are going to get personal with me, you are going to lose the battle. As long as you keep it respectful, I will do the same.